I think Howard Dean is hoping that Obama will carry the next 4-5 states and establish himself as the clear front-runner. He can then ask Hillary and Bill to back off and not have a fractured Convention. The Dems are really in the front seat this election, but they can't afford another 1968. Then again, I think Dean is strong enough to keep things under control.

Do you really think the Clinton's will back off? I don't. And Howard Dean is not nearly strong enough to make them back off. I have read that Bill Clinton has already been calling Super Delegates and recruiting them.

Do you really think the Clinton's will back off? I don't. And Howard Dean is not nearly strong enough to make them back off. I have read that Bill Clinton has already been calling Super Delegates and recruiting them.

I don't think they'll have a choice. If they lose the next few states and superdelegates start going to Obama, I think they'll face some intense pressure to drop out. As for Clinton calling the supers, so has Obama's camp.

Do you really think the Clinton's will back off? I don't. And Howard Dean is not nearly strong enough to make them back off. I have read that Bill Clinton has already been calling Super Delegates and recruiting them.

I don't think they'll have a choice. If they lose the next few states and superdelegates start going to Obama, I think they'll face some intense pressure to drop out. As for Clinton calling the supers, so has Obama's camp.

The problem is even if he "wins" these Chesapeake states the non-winner-take-all nature of them will still only pull him even in total delegates. I think under the present system it's going to be hard for either candidate to get to 2025 non-super delegate electors.

The problem is even if he "wins" these Chesapeake states the non-winner-take-all nature of them will still only pull him even in total delegates. I think under the present system it's going to be hard for either candidate to get to 2025 non-super delegate electors.

He already has the lead in total delegates since the supers don't count until the convention. Adding the Chesapeake states will extend that lead. Don't get me wrong - I don't expect Hillary to drop out prior to March 14th, but if she fares poorly on that day I'd expect she'll have to think hard about quitting.

I think Howard Dean is hoping that Obama will carry the next 4-5 states and establish himself as the clear front-runner. He can then ask Hillary and Bill to back off and not have a fractured Convention. The Dems are really in the front seat this election, but they can't afford another 1968. Then again, I think Dean is strong enough to keep things under control.

Do you really think the Clinton's will back off? I don't. And Howard Dean is not nearly strong enough to make them back off. I have read that Bill Clinton has already been calling Super Delegates and recruiting them.

Despite all the rhetoric about how "Hillary will do anything to win"... I just have never seen that. At least, not on the Democratic side. For example, I don't think the Clintons would be rigging elections to win, while people in another political party has already done so many times in recent past, and are seemingly still at it.

It's also amazing how the media ignores the Republican's constant use of the "Southern Strategy"... but tries to pain Bill Clinton as a racist for simply mentioning that Obama is black. And then, hypocritically, that's all the media was able to talk about this weekend.

Yes, our "Fair and Balanced" liberal media.

Anyway, if you really want to know if Republicans have a chance... ignore the percentages, since they are worthless and misleading. Look at the raw numbers. People voted for Democratic candidates almost 2-to-1 over Republicans. The Republicans lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people years ago.

Also, in the general election, it's going to be VERY easy to tie St. McCain to the GWB administration, since he's their biggest supporter. McCain wants a war with Iran, he wants an occupation of Iraq lasting at least 100 years, he wants more tax cuts for the wealthy, he hates health care for children, hates health care for veterans, loves torture, loves violating the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, etc... all things which are the very pillars of today's conservative establishment (not most Republican voters, mind you, just the establishment itself).

I'm still not convinced Obama is the best candidate, but it seems like the Democratic establishment has already lined up behind him. I think the post-Super Tuesday elections where simply seeing which candidate would end up as Vice President.

Despite all the rhetoric about how "Hillary will do anything to win"... I just have never seen that. At least, not on the Democratic side. For example, I don't think the Clintons would be rigging elections to win, while people in another political party has already done so many times in recent past, and are seemingly still at it.........

I stopped reading your post at that point. You really need to let the whole general election fixing thing go dude. It makes it hard to take anthing you say seriously when you continue to spout that nonsense.

Despite all the rhetoric about how "Hillary will do anything to win"... I just have never seen that. At least, not on the Democratic side. For example, I don't think the Clintons would be rigging elections to win, while people in another political party has already done so many times in recent past, and are seemingly still at it.........

I stopped reading your post at that point. You really need to let the whole general election fixing thing go dude. It makes it hard to take anthing you say seriously when you continue to spout that nonsense.

I don't mind you not reading my post, but it's a really shame you found that meaningful enough to make a post about.

I stopped reading your post at that point. You really need to let the whole general election fixing thing go dude. It makes it hard to take anthing you say seriously when you continue to spout that nonsense.

Yea, the last time the Dems did it successfully was 1960.

Seriously, there are a lot of people who believe that 2000, and perhaps 2004, were rigged. There's a lot of statistical evidence to show that minority votes (which are mostly Democrat) were undercounted. Also, there's also the appearance of impropriety - when the voting machine manufacturer (Diebold) has huge ties to the RNC, it calls into question the results, especially when testing has verified errors made in favor of the Repubs. As such, I can't help but question the election results of 2000 and 2004...however I don't take it to the level of Unbreakable.

Take it to what level? The level of accepting vote rigging has actually occurred... as opposed to pretending it didn't? Or ignoring it in order to be "polite"?

It's been said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Nobody said the price of freedom is meekly saying something those who rig our votes (and the people who love them) will not get mildly annoyed by.

There's more than enough verifiable evidence out there to prove beyond doubt that elections have been rigged at least in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I'm not going to change my world view because people prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

But hey, Kudos to Denoginizer for once again changing the discussion from ideas to personal attacks! Karl Rove has trained you well.

But hey, Kudos to Denoginizer for once again changing the discussion from ideas to personal attacks! Karl Rove has trained you well.

I would argue that the above is more of a personal attack than Denoginizer's statement.

Oh sure, because it's far more important to focus on me than on discussing rigged elections. Can't let people talk about that, right?

Case in point: I hardly posted at all in the past week, I come here today, and what's everyone in this part of the forum been discussing while I've been gone? Me.

Now this looks like a job for meSo everybody just follow meCuz we need a little controversy,Cuz it feels so empty without me

Just like a liberal to play the victim. If you actually had real proof and not just a bunch of hypotheses, people might actually take you seriously.

Victim? That's pretty funny, because my statement is quite the opposite. It's a statement of power: you guys just simply don't have anything to talk about, so you talk about me.

What do you guys do without me? Talk about me!

It's really funny, because every time I hear someone mention Republicans as being "the party of ideas", my first thought is that they are being ironic. But then, sadly, the realization hits that they are actually serious. I don't see what ideas Republicans have had for 30 years. They whine about taxes, and blame everything bad which happens under the sun on liberals. They have a really creepy man-crush on Reagan, and they've been obsessed with Bill Clinton's cock for ten years. Aside from that... I can't see what else Republicans are about.

Torture? War crimes? Treason? Theocracy? Fascism? Yeah, all that, but those don't really sound like ideals one would brag about. And they certainly aren't new ideas.

It's all good, though. A better America can be built on the ashes of the Republican party. People who really value fiscal responsibility can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party is really about responsibly using public funds. People who are really about religion and/or morality can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party is really about making America, and the world, a better place. People who are really about freedom from government intrusions into our lives can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party has been most against legislating morality, and which has upheld the fair and just rule of law.

But hey Graham, nice try at a personal attack! Maybe you can do better next time.

Victim? That's pretty funny, because my statement is quite the opposite. It's a statement of power: you guys just simply don't have anything to talk about, so you talk about me.

What do you guys do without me? Talk about me!

You made yourself the issue, instead of fighting with facts. You put up speculation without any facts to back it up. You claim that there is more than enough evidence, but you can't point to anything. It reminds me of a special on The History Channel about 9/11. They took every conspiracy theory out there and got experts in their respective fields and they shot down every single one with those experts.

Quote

But hey, Kudos to Denoginizer for once again changing the discussion from ideas to personal attacks! Karl Rove has trained you well.

Quote

It's really funny, because every time I hear someone mention Republicans as being "the party of ideas", my first thought is that they are being ironic. But then, sadly, the realization hits that they are actually serious. I don't see what ideas Republicans have had for 30 years. They whine about taxes, and blame everything bad which happens under the sun on liberals. They have a really creepy man-crush on Reagan, and they've been obsessed with Bill Clinton's cock for ten years. Aside from that... I can't see what else Republicans are about.

You mean how the Democrats have been obsessed with George Bush the past 8 years and still haven't found a way to defeat him. Nancy Pelosi and the entire Congress have an approval rating lower than GWB.

BTW, that investigation was about perjuery and obstruction of justice. Not wee-Billy-winkie.

Quote

Torture? War crimes? Treason? Theocracy? Fascism? Yeah, all that, but those don't really sound like ideals one would brag about. And they certainly aren't new ideas.

Ah yes, the MoveOn.org talking points. When you can't fight with facts, just call the Republican's names. Call them Fascists. Everyone will believe you. Who cares about facts! Here's the first dictionary.com definition of fascism:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

We aren't lead by a dictator, so sorry, BUZZZZZ, wrong, try again, better luck next time. Also, if Bush is such a racist, how come he's had more minority members in his Cabinet (and higher ranking members) than Bill Clinton did?

Quote

It's all good, though. A better America can be built on the ashes of the Republican party. People who really value fiscal responsibility can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party is really about responsibly using public funds. People who are really about religion and/or morality can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party is really about making America, and the world, a better place. People who are really about freedom from government intrusions into our lives can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party has been most against legislating morality, and which has upheld the fair and just rule of law.

I think that the Dems won back the House and the Senate because the Republicans had gone away from their roots and overspent. It should have been a wake-up call, and there are many Republicans that unfortunately didn't get the message. The message of "change" is a generic message. Change to what? Higher taxes for everyone is change, but it's not really a good change.

Then again, the Democrats aren't pure as the undriven snow as you'd like to believe:

But I know you won't read it, because I've seen you say that you won't go to links. Here's a simple quote for you though:

Quote

In contrast to McCain, Clinton boasts about scores of earmarks she delivers each year throughout her home state of New York. In the defense-bill earmarks Clinton sponsored, she mostly handed out business to defense contractors with operations in New York.

The Seattle Times counted more than 220 earmarks for Clinton in six other recent spending bills.

Those who get earmarks usually donate to election campaigns. Clinton's campaign has received $60,000 from those to whom she gave earmarks ó a pittance of the $116 million she's raised. She received a like amount from those same donors for her Senate race.

Quote

But hey Graham, nice try at a personal attack! Maybe you can do better next time.

I'm just stating facts. Then again, you think that if someone says something that disagrees with you, you think it's a personal attack. That's your M.O. "Someone is talking about me!!! WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!" In all honesty, if you think that everyone is attacking you, you have a pretty thin skin. You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Victim? That's pretty funny, because my statement is quite the opposite. It's a statement of power: you guys just simply don't have anything to talk about, so you talk about me.

What do you guys do without me? Talk about me!

You made yourself the issue, instead of fighting with facts. You put up speculation without any facts to back it up. You claim that there is more than enough evidence, but you can't point to anything. It reminds me of a special on The History Channel about 9/11. They took every conspiracy theory out there and got experts in their respective fields and they shot down every single one with those experts.

Like what, that I'm gone for about a week and everyone has nothing better to talk about than me? Look on the threads, bubba. Don't ask me for fact, you have as much access to this board as I do. Probably more, even.

Quote

Quote

But hey, Kudos to Denoginizer for once again changing the discussion from ideas to personal attacks! Karl Rove has trained you well.

Quote

You mean how the Democrats have been obsessed with George Bush the past 8 years and still haven't found a way to defeat him. Nancy Pelosi and the entire Congress have an approval rating lower than GWB.

Care to back that up? Kind of interesting how you are all about citing facts... then make claims without facts.

Quote

BTW, that investigation was about perjuery and obstruction of justice. Not wee-Billy-winkie.

Oh, yeah. Perjury and obstruction... about a blowjob. But there was no perjury or obstruction in what everyone in the White House did regarding Val Plame, right? Or, ya know, Saddam's phantom WMD stash. Or, ya know, lying to congress about real costs of the cost of the Republican's drug plan.

Quote

Quote

Torture? War crimes? Treason? Theocracy? Fascism? Yeah, all that, but those don't really sound like ideals one would brag about. And they certainly aren't new ideas.

Ah yes, the MoveOn.org talking points. When you can't fight with facts, just call the Republican's names. Call them Fascists. Everyone will believe you. Who cares about facts! Here's the first dictionary.com definition of fascism:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

We aren't lead by a dictator, so sorry, BUZZZZZ, wrong, try again, better luck next time. Also, if Bush is such a racist, how come he's had more minority members in his Cabinet (and higher ranking members) than Bill Clinton did?

Then I'm quite sure you REALLY must complain ALL THE TIME about books like this. Cuz, you know, you are all about not throwing around the term fascism.

Kind of interesting you didn't address the issue of torture. Or war crimes. It might get in the way of your monologuing.

Quote

Quote

It's all good, though. A better America can be built on the ashes of the Republican party. People who really value fiscal responsibility can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party is really about responsibly using public funds. People who are really about religion and/or morality can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party is really about making America, and the world, a better place. People who are really about freedom from government intrusions into our lives can just look at the track record of both parties over the past 40 years, and see which party has been most against legislating morality, and which has upheld the fair and just rule of law.

I think that the Dems won back the House and the Senate because the Republicans had gone away from their roots and overspent. It should have been a wake-up call, and there are many Republicans that unfortunately didn't get the message. The message of "change" is a generic message. Change to what? Higher taxes for everyone is change, but it's not really a good change.

Well, that's your opinion. Nobody's talking about raising taxes except the far-righters and the Faux News boyz, but despite all that, the Republicans didnt "get away from their roots"... because they've NEVER been about fiscal responsibility. EVERY Republican, once he gets in the White House, will just deficit spend like they can print money. Which, as you know, they actually CAN. And boy, do they ever! Those Republicans, they just party on America's tab til the wheels fall off!

Quote

Then again, the Democrats aren't pure as the undriven snow as you'd like to believe:

But I know you won't read it, because I've seen you say that you won't go to links. Here's a simple quote for you though:

Quote

In contrast to McCain, Clinton boasts about scores of earmarks she delivers each year throughout her home state of New York. In the defense-bill earmarks Clinton sponsored, she mostly handed out business to defense contractors with operations in New York.

The Seattle Times counted more than 220 earmarks for Clinton in six other recent spending bills.

Those who get earmarks usually donate to election campaigns. Clinton's campaign has received $60,000 from those to whom she gave earmarks — a pittance of the $116 million she's raised. She received a like amount from those same donors for her Senate race.

Yes, because I know you complained endlessly about the $100+ Billion in earmarks the Republicans racked up 2000 through 2006. In fact, I'll bet everyone here got sick of listening to you complain about it!

But you know what? You can search my posts... and I've actually complained that both Hillary and Obama receive money from the defense industry. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative, though.

Quote

Quote

But hey Graham, nice try at a personal attack! Maybe you can do better next time.

I'm just stating facts. Then again, you think that if someone says something that disagrees with you, you think it's a personal attack. That's your M.O. "Someone is talking about me!!! WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!" In all honesty, if you think that everyone is attacking you, you have a pretty thin skin. You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Nah, you aren't stating facts. You are just continuing the "Waaaaaaah!!!! They do it tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!" justifications that are high fashion among Republicans when the epic criminal behavior of their elected officials is discussed.

Where's the Democrat equivalent of all the Iraq War profiteering? Or the S&L scandal? Or Iran-Contra? Or Traitorgate? Or the Frist family's Medicare fraud? Or fucking Teapot Dome, if you want to dust off the history lessons? Republicans steal billions... and Clinton got a blowjob. Republicans get caught selling drugs in order to finance terrorists.... and Clinton got a blowjob. Republicans get exposed taking billions of dollars from the same people who financed 9/11... but hey, you know, Clinton and that blowjob!

And again, you make the mistake of thinking I care that people talk about me. I don't, I found it hilarious. As I said, it sounds like power to me: I can be gone for a week, and I'm still the only thing the right wingers can obsess over. Besides the Clenis, that is.

Ya'll take it to another thread. This is about the primaries. Should be interesting if Obama takes all 3 today by large margins...

I think he will win all three primaries. But the sad thing is he will still only draw even with Hillary in total delegates. I know we are not supposed to count super delegates in the mix. But it seems that all of the media outlets are counting them. Even CNN's website still shows Hillary ahead going into today.

That's the thing, Democrats don't have to worry about "electability" (despite what Obama campaigners want everyone to think). Not even taking America's Republican fatigue into account, the Republican side is so weak there won't even be a contest.

So it's not about "who can win", because the generic Democratic candidate already has it. It's about who we want.

No matter who gets the nomination, I think the other will still end up with VP. Obama's campaign has too much money and too much popular support to ignore, and Clinton's campaign has too much experience and clout, and too much popular support to ignore.

I think there are even quite a few Republicans who think that this will be a Democratic walk-over given the unpopularity of the war, the economy, and GWB's approval rating. Also Democratic primary voters have outnumbered Republican primary voters 19 million to 12 million thus far.

But McCain and Hillary are running very close in (admittadly pretty meaningless) national polls right now. Also don't forget that John Kerry was up by 15 points in the national polls during May of 2004.

I think Obabma vs McCain could be a huge Obama victory. But Hillary vs Obama could be tight.

That's been the narrative from the news services, but they also thought Rudy was the Republican front-runner. And he got less votes than Ron Paul.

Also... I've been pretty shocked by the amount of hatred Republicans are throwing at McCain. I get the feeling that between the sense the Democrats will win anyway, and their intense dislike of McCain, most Republican voters will just stay home on election day. Not even the spooky stories Fox and friends tell about the horrors of a President Hillary will be enough to get out the vote.

A great amount of it may be McCain's love of warmongering. The war is highly unpopular, even among Republicans. So for McCain's vows to stay the course in Iraq for the next 100 years, that's just not something your average American will support. That's also why Fox barred Ron Paul from the debates: every time he started talking about withdrawing troops, Republcans in the audience cheered. That's doesn't fit the worldview Fox News is pushing, so they did everything they could to prevent showing anything except more stay the course.

Ron Paul was barred from the debate because he wasn't getting 10 percent in national polls. And since he is the only anti-war republican candidate and is not achieving 10%, that would seem to contradict your theory that most republicans are against the war. In addition there are some registered democrats who are actually in favor of keeping a military presence in Iraq and could be persuaded to vote for McCain. I say that because I am one of them.

Ron Paul was barred from the debate because he wasn't getting 10 percent in national polls.

Neither was Rudy at that point. Yet there he was, up on stage with his 9/11 Tourette's set to full volume.

Quote

And since he is the only anti-war republican candidate and is not achieving 10%, that would seem to contradict your theory that most republicans are against the war.

No, the amount of support Ron Paul has is only representative of how much support Ron Paul has. Nice try, though.

Quote

In addition there are some registered democrats who are actually in favor of keeping a military presence in Iraq and could be persuaded to vote for McCain. I say that because I am one of them.

Select sample. It's also not enough to sway the election. An overwhelming majority of the country is against the war. That link might also give you a lot of insight into what the American public is actually thinking, as opposed to what you think they are thinking.

I definately think there are alot of republicans and middle of the road democrats who think the war has been mishandled. But I'm not sure how many want us out of Iraq completely. I guess we'll find out because that will probably be the central issue in a McCain vs Obama election in November.

Yes, by 2004 most Americans were, at the least, not believing we should have gone there. I don't recall at that point how many people were actively against the war, because that was when the Republicans were foaming at the mouth about how anyone who didn't love killing (and raping and torturing) Iraqi civilians was a traitor, a cut-and-runner, weak on Terrrrrrrrerrrrrrrrism, etc.

It's kind of hard to support a war which takes longer than WW2, costs more than WW2, and has yet to produce a single tangible positive result.

A great amount of it may be McCain's love of warmongering. The war is highly unpopular, even among Republicans. So for McCain's vows to stay the course in Iraq for the next 100 years, that's just not something your average American will support. That's also why Fox barred Ron Paul from the debates: every time he started talking about withdrawing troops, Republicans in the audience cheered. That's doesn't fit the worldview Fox News is pushing, so they did everything they could to prevent showing anything except more stay the course.

Every one I know who is Republican, which is just about everyone in this part of the country, is for the war. McCain is for the war, and he is the leading nominee. So I wouldn't say the war is unpopular in his party, I would say the way it was handled is unpopular with the Republicans.

McCain's position, is that we need to finish what we started, that we can't just pull out now and leave it even worse than it was before. He said if it takes a 100 years we will do it, not that he wants it to take that long. Which is a position people do support (including me as a democrat). Also McCain is not a warmonger, he said he would use military force if necessary on Iran after consulting congress and other world leaders. No Commander in Chief ever rules out military action, he just said it was an option, not that he would do it.

Ron Paul adds nothing to the debates, that's why he was banned. He has almost no support (how many states has he won? How far behind in delegates is he?) and isn't considered a serious candidate by pretty anyone outside of his own supporters. I personally am glad they aren't letting him in. And Republicans didn't cheer for him as much as Ron Paul supporters who got in cheered. Again, if the war was so important for Republicans, why is a pro war candidate easily winning?

A great amount of it may be McCain's love of warmongering. The war is highly unpopular, even among Republicans. So for McCain's vows to stay the course in Iraq for the next 100 years, that's just not something your average American will support. That's also why Fox barred Ron Paul from the debates: every time he started talking about withdrawing troops, Republicans in the audience cheered. That's doesn't fit the worldview Fox News is pushing, so they did everything they could to prevent showing anything except more stay the course.

Every one I know who is Republican, which is just about everyone in this part of the country, is for the war. McCain is for the war, and he is the leading nominee. So I wouldn't say the war is unpopular in his party, I would say the way it was handled is unpopular with the Republicans.

But again, just because all your friends and everyone you talk to at the bar and everyone in your church and everyone you work with and everyone you went to high school with loves the war, that doesn't mean everyone in America does. Last time I checked, America claimed to be a democracy, so those kind of things tend to be typically viewed as somewhat relevant (although it's not a truism, obviously: if it were, the US wouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place).

So, again, viewing my link to the polling data is interesting as an overview. Now obviously, you can't place your belief 100% into polls, but since there are a wide range of polls by different organizations with differing methodologies, it will at the least provide some insight.

As for McCain's supposed support, I read this from SurveyUSA:

Quote

Eve of VA GOP Primary, Huckabee Closes-In On McCain: Big movement in Virginia following Mike Huckabee's strong showing over the weekend in Louisiana, Kansas and Washington state. On the eve of the Virginia Republican Primary, it's John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 37%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released 72 hours ago, McCain is down 9, Huckabee is up 12. McCain had led by 32, now leads by 11. Among Conservative voters, McCain had led by 21, now trails by 5. Among Pro-Life voters, McCain had led by 20 points, now trails by 6. Among voters in Southeast VA, McCain had led by 28, now trails by 12. Among voters focused on Immigration, McCain had led by 16, now trails by 17. Among voters who attend religious services regularly, McCain had led by 24, now trails by 2.

So much for his groundswell of support. Seems like his grass roots are getting watered down.

Quote

McCain's position, is that we need to finish what we started, that we can't just pull out now and leave it even worse than it was before. He said if it takes a 100 years we will do it, not that he wants it to take that long. Which is a position people do support (including me as a democrat). Also McCain is not a warmonger, he said he would use military force if necessary on Iran after consulting congress and other world leaders. No Commander in Chief ever rules out military action, he just said it was an option, not that he would do it.

Yeah, and that's the same line of bullshit the Bushites used too. By the way, McCain believes that America doesn't concern itself with how long we stay in Iraq, be it (in his own words), 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years. So in reality, McCain could have a target withdrawl date in mind of 12,008.

Seeing that McCain has been hugging "stay the course" so hard that it's become a part of him, it's kind of absurd to think he brings anything new to the table. McCain is the closest thing the Republicans have to reelecting GWB.

Quote

Ron Paul adds nothing to the debates, that's why he was banned. He has almost no support (how many states has he won? How far behind in delegates is he?) and isn't considered a serious candidate by pretty anyone outside of his own supporters. I personally am glad they aren't letting him in. And Republicans didn't cheer for him as much as Ron Paul supporters who got in cheered. Again, if the war was so important for Republicans, why is a pro war candidate easily winning?

Your talking point metric discredits itself: Fox had Rudy 9ui11iani in the debate. How many states did he win? How far behind in delegates was he? Rudy was BEHIND Ron Paul in terms of support. And yet... he was in the debates. By your own metric, Rudy was far less relevant than Ron Paul.

As for why RP didnt have more support, the reason is simple, and part of it I already stated: Ron Paul's support only represents the amount of support Ron Paul had. Anyone who was solidly against the war has probably already left the party. People aren't going to stay on a burning ship because they want to help get someone new appointed Captain.

The Republican strategy for the past eight years has been to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. How's that been working out for them? But I'm truly hoping they acheive their dream of a permanent one-party majority. The good new is, it's looking like they won't be that party. The only bad news I can think of is it doesn't look like the Democrats have the guts it takes to crush the Republican party once and for all. But seeing how so many Republican Congressmen are resigning this cycle, or getting indicted, or getting caught in sex scandals, or caught saying something stupid... maybe the Republicans are willing to do most of the heavy lifting.

But again, just because all your friends and everyone you talk to at the bar and everyone in your church and everyone you work with and everyone you went to high school with loves the war, that doesn't mean everyone in America does. Last time I checked, America claimed to be a democracy, so those kind of things tend to be typically viewed as somewhat relevant (although it's not a truism, obviously: if it were, the US wouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place).

So, again, viewing my link to the polling data is interesting as an overview. Now obviously, you can't place your belief 100% into polls, but since there are a wide range of polls by different organizations with differing methodologies, it will at the least provide some insight.

Exactly, the polls don't say anything about Republican support, so you are just stating an opinion that Republicans are against the war. The fact is that a republican candidate, on one of the biggest issues of this election, is pro-war. The fact that he is winning the election easily at this point says a lot of what Republicans think. All but one of the republican candidates is pro war, and that one candidate has a whooping 16 delegates. That says more to me about what Republicans want more than what some pundit tells me.

Quote

As for McCain's supposed support, I read this from SurveyUSA:

Quote

Eve of VA GOP Primary, Huckabee Closes-In On McCain: Big movement in Virginia following Mike Huckabee's strong showing over the weekend in Louisiana, Kansas and Washington state. On the eve of the Virginia Republican Primary, it's John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 37%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released 72 hours ago, McCain is down 9, Huckabee is up 12. McCain had led by 32, now leads by 11. Among Conservative voters, McCain had led by 21, now trails by 5. Among Pro-Life voters, McCain had led by 20 points, now trails by 6. Among voters in Southeast VA, McCain had led by 28, now trails by 12. Among voters focused on Immigration, McCain had led by 16, now trails by 17. Among voters who attend religious services regularly, McCain had led by 24, now trails by 2.

So much for his groundswell of support. Seems like his grass roots are getting watered down.

Means nothing. LA and KS are Bible states, I would have been surprised if they went to McCain. And hell Washington's Republicans picked Pat Robertson in 1988 (the only state he won), so that says something about the voters there too. McCain wins the big, important states, which is why he has such a commanding lead. Anyway all this is beside the point, Huckabee is pro war also. Now if you tell me Ron Paul was coming on strong, you would have a point about what Republicans want.

Quote

Yeah, and that's the same line of bullshit the Bushites used too. By the way, McCain believes that America doesn't concern itself with how long we stay in Iraq, be it (in his own words), 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years. So in reality, McCain could have a target withdrawl date in mind of 12,008.

Seeing that McCain has been hugging "stay the course" so hard that it's become a part of him, it's kind of absurd to think he brings anything new to the table. McCain is the closest thing the Republicans have to reelecting GWB.

Ok, you don't think we should clean up the mess we started? We should just leave and let them sort it out themselves or be invaded by whoever wants the oil? Myself, I think we have responsibility to the country now, whether we like it or not. I also don't believe any of the candidates running now will get us out of Iraq, it's just not that easy as one day saying we're done.

Anyway the rest of the 100 year quote was:

Quote

As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Thatís fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

This has been US policy in places like Korea and Germany for over 50 years. We have stayed and supported the countries we got involved with. We have bases all over the world that exist peacefully and help the countries they are in, that was his point. Not that we should be in this "war" that we are in now over there forever. He spells out his plan on his website, which is very similar to Bush, yes.

Quote

Your talking point metric discredits itself: Fox had Rudy 9ui11iani in the debate. How many states did he win? How far behind in delegates was he? Rudy was BEHIND Ron Paul in terms of support. And yet... he was in the debates. By your own metric, Rudy was far less relevant than Ron Paul.

Rudy was still doing well in polls for the most part, and his strategy was to wait for Florida, where he was still doing quite well. Paul has never had strong support in any of the states. He was given numerous chances in debates where you could see that even the other candidates thought he was a joke.

Anyway, he doesn't stand a chance of hell in winning, I would rather see viable candidates debate myself.

Eve of VA GOP Primary, Huckabee Closes-In On McCain: Big movement in Virginia following Mike Huckabee's strong showing over the weekend in Louisiana, Kansas and Washington state. On the eve of the Virginia Republican Primary, it's John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 37%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released 72 hours ago, McCain is down 9, Huckabee is up 12. McCain had led by 32, now leads by 11. Among Conservative voters, McCain had led by 21, now trails by 5. Among Pro-Life voters, McCain had led by 20 points, now trails by 6. Among voters in Southeast VA, McCain had led by 28, now trails by 12. Among voters focused on Immigration, McCain had led by 16, now trails by 17. Among voters who attend religious services regularly, McCain had led by 24, now trails by 2.

yeah, I'm awaiting the avalanche of campaigning. I've never voted for a candidate who has won before (didn't get to vote in the last Prez election due to my absentee ballot reaching me too late but I liked Perot during the Clinton elections and Gore in 2000), but I'm swinging my support to Obama. Worst case is he's a total joke and out in 4 years.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

What do you mean we, Kemo Sabe? I never supported the war in Iraq, nor did I vote for GWB. It's not my mess, and it's not in America's best interests to be there in the first place.

The Iraqis don't want us there, the American people don't want us there, and it's being used as a training ground for terrorist groups all around the world. It's a mujaheddin's wet dream!

And it's also a distraction from winning in Afghanistan. I have no idea why the Republicans decided to cut and run from Osama. That's probably why the terrorists are resurging all over: GWB ended up looking terrified of Osama, especially when the president of Pakistan starts offering amnesty to the Taliban.

Quote

We should just leave and let them sort it out themselves or be invaded by whoever wants the oil? Myself, I think we have responsibility to the country now, whether we like it or not. I also don't believe any of the candidates running now will get us out of Iraq, it's just not that easy as one day saying we're done.

Well that's the difference of opinion. I think we need to do what's in America's best interest, and you think we need to clean up the messes conservatives make by trying to play conqueror (and if you don't think that's what was going on, you need to inform yourself- check out the PNAC).

Quote

Anyway the rest of the 100 year quote was:

Quote

As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Thatís fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

This has been US policy in places like Korea and Germany for over 50 years. We have stayed and supported the countries we got involved with. We have bases all over the world that exist peacefully and help the countries they are in, that was his point. Not that we should be in this "war" that we are in now over there forever. He spells out his plan on his website, which is very similar to Bush, yes.

Of course it's similiar to Bush. In other words, stay the course on a plan which has failed from the very start.

Yeah... that's gonna turn out well. Good thing these guys weren't in charge during WW2, huh? We'd all be speaking German. Or Japanese, depending on which coast you were closest to.

Quote

Quote

Your talking point metric discredits itself: Fox had Rudy 9ui11iani in the debate. How many states did he win? How far behind in delegates was he? Rudy was BEHIND Ron Paul in terms of support. And yet... he was in the debates. By your own metric, Rudy was far less relevant than Ron Paul.

Rudy was still doing well in polls for the most part, and his strategy was to wait for Florida, where he was still doing quite well. Paul has never had strong support in any of the states. He was given numerous chances in debates where you could see that even the other candidates thought he was a joke.

Anyway, he doesn't stand a chance of hell in winning, I would rather see viable candidates debate myself.

And the polls were pretty damn inaccurate. And Rudy's "Florida strategy" was bullshit he cooked up after getting destroyed in every other race he was in: you don't honestly buy that, do you?

Fact was, Ron Paul had more right to be at the debate than Rudy. He had more delegates at the time, and that was exactly the metric you laid out for discrediting RP. And if polls were the measure for excluding people, why was Teh Huckster there? He had as much credible chance of winning as Ron Paul.

Eve of VA GOP Primary, Huckabee Closes-In On McCain: Big movement in Virginia following Mike Huckabee's strong showing over the weekend in Louisiana, Kansas and Washington state. On the eve of the Virginia Republican Primary, it's John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 37%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released 72 hours ago, McCain is down 9, Huckabee is up 12. McCain had led by 32, now leads by 11. Among Conservative voters, McCain had led by 21, now trails by 5. Among Pro-Life voters, McCain had led by 20 points, now trails by 6. Among voters in Southeast VA, McCain had led by 28, now trails by 12. Among voters focused on Immigration, McCain had led by 16, now trails by 17. Among voters who attend religious services regularly, McCain had led by 24, now trails by 2.

He racked up large leads over Huckabee in the Washington suburbs of northern Virginia and in the counties around Richmond, the capital. But Huckabee's strong showing highlights McCain's ongoing struggle to win over the party's conservative base, which exit polls found made up two-thirds of Virginia GOP voters

McCain drew the support of only 32 percent of conservatives, exit polls indicated. Self-described GOP moderates voted more than 2-to-1 for the Arizona senator, but they made up little more than a quarter of the electorate.

Between Super Delegates, the Michigan/Florida issues, and neither candidate being able to hit 2025 thanks to the silly Democratic proportional delegate system, it looks like it could get ugly on the democratic side in the next few months. It's going to be fun to watch.

Between Super Delegates, the Michigan/Florida issues, and neither candidate being able to hit 2025 thanks to the silly Democratic proportional delegate system, it looks like it could get ugly on the democratic side in the next few months. It's going to be fun to watch.

Why is a proportional system silly? The republicans have a candidate that huge portions of their base don't like - which is arguably a much stupider outcome. In contrast, states that have almost never mattered in primaries before (Wisconsin? Hawaii? Texas? Pennsylvania?) have a say in the democratic nomination. I know that Washington's caucus event was the first time I'd participated because for once Iowa hadn't made the decision for me.

Between Super Delegates, the Michigan/Florida issues, and neither candidate being able to hit 2025 thanks to the silly Democratic proportional delegate system, it looks like it could get ugly on the democratic side in the next few months. It's going to be fun to watch.

Why is a proportional system silly? The republicans have a candidate that huge portions of their base don't like - which is arguably a much stupider outcome. In contrast, states that have almost never mattered in primaries before (Wisconsin? Hawaii? Texas? Pennsylvania?) have a say in the democratic nomination. I know that Washington's caucus event was the first time I'd participated because for once Iowa hadn't made the decision for me.

It is silly when you combine it with disqualifying 2 large states and making it very possible that no candidate can get the required amount of delegates for the nomination without super delegates deciding the nomination.

Large portions of Republicans would not like any of the candidates this year. Proportional or not. But in the meantime McCain gets to focus on the national election while Obama and Hillary fracture up the democratic party possibly right into the convention. I fear that alot of the new people Obama has attracted could get frustrated and not vote in the general election, if it appears that Obama may have been cheated out of the nomination by some backroom super delegate maneuvering.

The proportional system seems like a waste of time. It results in such small net gains that small states actually become less relevant. Typical liberal thinking. We are a winner take all nation. Second place is just the 1st loser. I'll bet you like it when they don't keep score in your kids' soccer games too.

The proportional system seems like a waste of time. It results in such small net gains that small states actually become less relevant. Typical liberal thinking. I'll bet you don't like it when they don't keep score in your kids' soccer games too.

You have a very strange perspective. In the past, the primary winner has been decided after the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. The proportional system makes every state more important because the delegate totals actually, you know, matter for choosing the delegate. Small states are only "less relevant" if you're one of those people that think individual votes don't matter. But theydo.

The proportional system seems like a waste of time. It results in such small net gains that small states actually become less relevant. Typical liberal thinking. I'll bet you like it when they don't keep score in your kids' soccer games too.

You have a very strange perspective. In the past, the primary winner has been decided after the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. The proportional system makes every state more important because the delegate totals actually, you know, matter for choosing the delegate. Small states are only "less relevant" if you're one of those people that think individual votes don't matter. But theydo.

What state do you live in?

I live in Ohio.

The nominee has been decided in Iowa and New Hampshire only because of the way the media covers the primaries. Not the primaries themselves. The Primary system is certainly flawed. I agree with you there. But proportional primaries are not the answer.

Fixing this problem would be a good start:"Democratic superdelegates make up about 800 votes of the just more than 2,000 delegate votes needed to clinch the presidential nomination at their convention."